Re: calling firmware code data is not being honest with ourselves, includes counterproposal and RFC on a possible Amendment (Was: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware)
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in the above
> > > and replace them with the term "sourceless", to keep the scope the same as
>
> > Well, the DFSG clearly state that programs need to have sources to be free. so
> > i don't really see why you are afraid to use the right word for it ?
>
> It is not the "right" word for it, it is a *different* word, which changes
> the scope of the resolution. The GR I've proposed does not excuse non-free
> firmware in general, it only states that sourceless firmware is permitted.
sourceless firmwares are non-free. By calling them sourceless instead of
non-free, you kind of excuse keeping them in main, and kind of implies that
even if they are lacking source, they still are DFSG free, which is a clear
contradiction with both our principles, common sense, and what debian has
stood for all those years and confirmed in the pre-sarge GRs.
> Whether you consider sourceless firmware to be non-free or not, changing
> "sourceless" to "non-free" is a change of scope.
Indeed, you pass from word nit-picking and duisguising the truth to saying
things squarely as they are.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: